Take a hike denier. These samples are all fluff pieces. There is not a single physical process paper in the above list. "How to communiate"? WTF is that? I have submitted papers on model process studies and not "how to communicate". I have presented at conferences my work and have listened to other researchers present their results. I have never seen or heard the term "scientific consensus" used since it has no meaning in the context of research. A title such as:

Good God man.....can you read? Each of these published articles uses the term consensus in the context of climate change in the title of the paper, let alone in the body. I didn't have to dig very deep to find such articles. Hence your comment:

I have never seen this term circulated at conferences and in scientific journal articles

simply points out that apparently you haven't read much.

The scientific consensus on GCR impacts on the atmosphere dynamics sounds utterly retarded.

It does indeed but probably because you just made this statement up. There is no such title listed in the papers that I pointed to. Not sure what point you are trying to make here other than apparently you can't read.

I have never seen or heard the term "scientific consensus" used since it has no meaning in the context of research

and I have never actually seen a red panda, although I am pretty sure they exist. I just haven't been someplace where I would run into one.

And there are lot's of scientists involved in climate research who use the term "consensus" in the context of climate research all the time. Here are a few quotes as examples:

The latest IPCC report makes no bones about stating the consensus that human-driven climate change is occurring and it is important.

.the overwhelming consensus is that the globe is warming. The overwhelming consensus is that this is making changes to severe weather and rare events, be it heavy rainfall, droughts,

Dr. Greg Holland, National Center for Atmospheric Research

We’ve had over 100 years of scientists trying to prove this theory wrong, and there is close to unanimous scientific agreement on this as you’re ever going to find, with at least 97% consensus among scientists who actually work on the subject.

Professor Mark Cochrane, Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence.

The chances that we’ve got it wrong, that the scientific consensus is wrong about this, that there isn’t a major human influence on climate — the chances that that’s the case seems to keep reducing as we get more and more data.

You lost the argument, roc-tard. You have not provided a single citation dealing with the physics that backs up your claim. You cited a bunch of fluff aimed at policy people (many of whom do not even have any science background) and now you make public quotes. When some media drone asks about the certainty of climate science use of the term "consensus" is an accurate empirical observation of the published literature.

But that does not imply that those publications were produced by some grand "criminal" enterprise as you are insinuating. Those papers were produced by independent handfuls of researchers (laboratory papers have many more co-authors because lab work is labour intensive and every technician gets credit) who often do not agree with each other. That is the opposite of the claim spouted by paid corporate whore Lindzen.

You lost the argument, roc-tard. You have not provided a single citation dealing with the physics that backs up your claim. You cited a bunch of fluff aimed at policy people (many of whom do not even have any science background) and now you make public quotes. When some media drone asks about the certainty of climate science use of the term "consensus" is an accurate empirical observation of the published literature.

this is what you said precisely

The term "scientific consensus" is one used in politics and internet fora. I have never seen this term circulated at conferences and in scientific journal articles.

to which I responded by posting a number of "scientific journal articles" that clearly use that term and now you pivot to somehow change what you originally said.

the quotes are from actual climate scientists, not from media persons. Those scientists believe there is a consensus and they seemingly have no problem speaking about it.

But that does not imply that those publications were produced by some grand "criminal" enterprise as you are insinuating.

exactly where did I "imply" that. I never did. What I am saying is your contention that the term consensus has never appeared in a scientific journal or has been used at a conference is complete and utter nonsense.

That is the opposite of the claim spouted by paid corporate whore Lindzen.

YOu haven't provided any evidence that Lindzen said anything of the kind. Your interpretation of the quote that KaiserJeep posted is complete nonsense. It is clear you need a course in remedial english.

onlooker wrote:https://dgrnewsservice.org/civilization/ecocide/climate-change/climate-change-denialism-due-to-cognitive-dissonance-rather-than-scientific-illiteracy/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetworkSTUDY FINDS CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL DUE TO COGNITIVE DISSONANCE RATHER THAN SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACYA euphemism for you can't handle the truth

Dubious. Few have the education background to evaluate radiative transfer, global circulation modeling, cloud and aerosol processes, etc. Climate science is one of the most broad spectrum in terms of processes that determine the results. Most are scientifically illiterate on condensed matter physics and that is a much narrower field in terms of theoretical machinery.

Cognitive dissonance is the direct result of ignorance. It is about swallowing some bubble reality and being unaware of the alternatives.

II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

During his 30 years the climate has changed remarkably little, eh. Lindzen must not step outside much. Where I live the winter comes two weeks later and at the cottage September has lost its frost days with routine 20+ C weather the new norm. But some can fob this off as long term weather variation. OK, stellar intellects, the land and sea ice distribution on this planet reflects thousands of years of temperature and precipitation history. That glaciers which last long after the last glacial maximum are disappearing tells you that the current "weather" variation occurs on timescales of tens of thousands of years. Unless we have orbital variation to explain for this, then we are left only with the greenhouse effect as the alternative. The oceans are the only reservoir of dynamical memory that could induced multi-thousand year variations. The atmosphere cannot have variations on such long timescales and is subject to much higher frequency noise (basically the atmosphere forgets after a couple of years its previous dynamical state). Changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere and inducing radiative transfer changes is the only viable explanation for the observed temperature and associated impacts.

I am an actual atmospheric scientist and I say Lindzen is like Fred Singer, an industry shill pushing an agenda. Linear Lindzen's heyday was back during the late 1960s and 1970s. His focus has been linear modeling and he has never accepted the reality of nonlinear dynamics in the atmosphere. For example, the nonlinear "breaking" of Rossby waves in the stratospheric subtropical "surf zone". He keeps pushing linearized analysis of Rossby wave interaction with the zonal circulation. This sort of research is good for new graduate students, but is totally obsolete. Lindzen has given up doing real research and now does political advocacy.

I usually don't get into the hoax debate because it is a losing battle but...

I think the term consensus has only been used in response to the concept that one scientist paid by the FF industry can refute the whole scientific process. Just like Bill Nye said, fox news has turned a 2% uncertainty into a 100% debunk. That's not how science works. The public wants consensus so the MSM tries to deliver but it has no meaning to the science.

Mother Earth is not interested in consensus. She will do her thing without our approval or understanding. Keeping an open scientific mind gives us the best chance to understand before she bites us in the a$$

A Solar fuel spill is otherwise known as a sunny day!The energy density of a tank of FF's doesn't matter if it's empty.https://monitoringpublic.solaredge.com/solaredge-web/p/kiosk?guid=19844186-d749-40d6-b848-191e899b37db

Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula has long been touted by supporters of the theory man is destroying the planet by using fossil fuels as proof of the dangers of global warming. Al Gore, the face of the world-is-going-to-end climate movement, has visited Antarctica on at least two occasions to highlight the alleged problem.

“This prediction has proven true,” Gore wrote about the claim Antarctica would warm faster than the global average. “Today, the West Antarctic Peninsula is warming about four times faster than the global average.”

Alarmists say the melting of ice sheets in Antarctica will cause massive problems for the rest of the world. For example, left-wing website ThinkProgress wrote in 2012, “Although the vast ice sheets of the frozen continent are remote from almost all of human civilization, their warming has drastic implications for billions of people. With the melting of those almost inconceivable reserves of ice, the planet’s sea levels are rising. Scientists now expect 21st-century sea level rise — on the scale of three to six feet or more — will be dominated by the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps.”

Climate realists have rightfully pointed out the evidence shows total ice accumulation on Antarctica has outweighed losses, a claim bolstered by a 2015 NASA study, which found, “An increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.” But even many climate change skeptics have accepted some significant parts of Antarctica are warming.

All that is about to change.

A study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment in February is now getting the attention of prominent climate change skeptics. The study claims the Antarctic Peninsula is cooling and that the previous warming in the second half of the 21st century is “an extreme case.” The researchers also found the recent cooling trend, which they say began in 1998-99, has already had a significant impact on the Antarctic Peninsula’s cryosphere, slowing down “glacier recession.”

According to the authors’ abstract:

“The Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is often described as a region with one of the largest warming trends on Earth since the 1950s, based on the temperature trend … recorded at Faraday/Vernadsky station. Accordingly, most works describing the evolution of the natural systems in the AP region cite this extreme trend as the underlying cause of their observed changes. However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. … We show that Faraday/Vernadsky warming trend is an extreme case, circa twice those of the long-term records from other parts of the northern AP. Our results also indicate that the cooling initiated in 1998/1999 has been most significant in the N and NE of the AP and the South Shetland Islands (> 0.5 °C between the two last decades), modest in the Orkney Islands, and absent in the SW of the AP. This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP, including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.”

I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula has long been touted by supporters of the theory man is destroying the planet by using fossil fuels as proof of the dangers of global warming. Al Gore, the face of the world-is-going-to-end climate movement, has visited Antarctica on at least two occasions to highlight the alleged problem.

“This prediction has proven true,” Gore wrote about the claim Antarctica would warm faster than the global average. “Today, the West Antarctic Peninsula is warming about four times faster than the global average.”

Alarmists say the melting of ice sheets in Antarctica will cause massive problems for the rest of the world. For example, left-wing website ThinkProgress wrote in 2012, “Although the vast ice sheets of the frozen continent are remote from almost all of human civilization, their warming has drastic implications for billions of people. With the melting of those almost inconceivable reserves of ice, the planet’s sea levels are rising. Scientists now expect 21st-century sea level rise — on the scale of three to six feet or more — will be dominated by the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps.”

Climate realists have rightfully pointed out the evidence shows total ice accumulation on Antarctica has outweighed losses, a claim bolstered by a 2015 NASA study, which found, “An increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.” But even many climate change skeptics have accepted some significant parts of Antarctica are warming.

All that is about to change.

A study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment in February is now getting the attention of prominent climate change skeptics. The study claims the Antarctic Peninsula is cooling and that the previous warming in the second half of the 21st century is “an extreme case.” The researchers also found the recent cooling trend, which they say began in 1998-99, has already had a significant impact on the Antarctic Peninsula’s cryosphere, slowing down “glacier recession.”

According to the authors’ abstract:

“The Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is often described as a region with one of the largest warming trends on Earth since the 1950s, based on the temperature trend … recorded at Faraday/Vernadsky station. Accordingly, most works describing the evolution of the natural systems in the AP region cite this extreme trend as the underlying cause of their observed changes. However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. … We show that Faraday/Vernadsky warming trend is an extreme case, circa twice those of the long-term records from other parts of the northern AP. Our results also indicate that the cooling initiated in 1998/1999 has been most significant in the N and NE of the AP and the South Shetland Islands (> 0.5 °C between the two last decades), modest in the Orkney Islands, and absent in the SW of the AP. This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP, including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.”

Real quality sources there Tanada. You do know that cooling trends can be the direct result of global warming, don't you? For example, warming of the oceans changes the circulation distribution and intensity. This can pump cold deeper waters to the surface faster regionally than any surface warming from the atmosphere. So you get a cooling trend.

I recall the lack of an sea surface temperature (SST) warming trend during the 1980s being touted as proof that global warming was a hoax. This BS is making a come back apparently. Deniers bank on the average sap not having a clue about the physics and then swallowing ridiculous "proofs" such as the above. To the ignorant any half assed theory can sound plausible if the right language is used.

I downloaded the Oliva et al. (2017) paper and it evident after the first skim that their analysis smells. Figure 2 fits a couple of trend lines through the data at various stations. All 10 stations exhibit a warming trend until 2005 and a cooling trend or a trend break after 2005. This BS has to be seen to be believed

1) They claim trends based on less than 10 years of data. The problem with this is that similar "cooling" trends can be found in all the temperature time series after 1970. That is, moving their 10 year (2005-2015) window can show cooling from the late 1980s to the early 1990s and at other intervals depending on the station. So we have a clear case of the "world has been cooling after 1998" meme here.

2) There is not a single mention of sea surface temperatures in the whole paper. I wonder why...

the late 1980s to the early 1990s and at other intervals depending on the station. So we have a clear case of the "world has been cooling after 1998" meme here.

That is ridiculous. The term trend just means “the general direction or prevailing tendency” in this case since 1998. There is no rule as to what interval of time is required for a trend to be recognizable. I don’t see anyone here suggesting regional trends in the Antarctic peninsula are indicative of global trends at all. More importantly the trend change was actually identified in a previous paper that Oliva et al, 2016 reference:

The Olivia paper is an attempt to pull apart those trends station by station in order to understand what the differences are across the peninsula in general as well as by season.

The Turner et al, 2016 paper describes how they arrived at the change in trends from warming to cooling at 1998-1999.

We use a stacked and normalized SAT anomaly record (Fig. 2a) based on the six station SAT time series (see Methods) to investigate the broad-scale changes that have affected the northern AP since 1979. To provide an objective measure of the timing of the change in trend we used the sequential Mann–Kendall test (see Methods). This identified the middle of 1998 to early 1999 as the most likely turning point between the warming and cooling periods (indicated by shading on Fig. 2). The trends in the stacked SAT during the warming (0.32 ± 0.20 per decade (dec−1), 1979–1997) and cooling (−0.47 ± 0.25 dec−1, 1999–2014) periods are both statistically signifi- cant at P < 0.05 (Extended Data Table 1). To confirm that the change in trend is not simply an artefact of the extreme El Niño conditions during 1997–1998, we repeated the analysis for 1979–1996 and 2000–2014. The trends were still significant at P < 0.05, although magnitudes were slightly smaller.

The methodology is well laid out in their Methods section

The Figure referred to is :

2) There is not a single mention of sea surface temperatures in the whole paper. I wonder why...

Might have something to do with the fact that they are interested in sorting out Surface Air Temperature as it is distributed geographically across the peninsula and the differences seen seasonally and less so with origin of those SATs. But they indirectly reference ocean influences via a relationship with ENSO:

From 1998 onward, a turning point has been observed in the evolution of MAATs across the AP region (Turner et al. 2016), changing from a warming to a cooling trend (Fig. 4). This year coincides with one of the strongest El Niño events of the last decades (Trenberth et al., 2002). The same pattern was also observed after the El Niño event of 1982–83, although the magnitude of the temperature decrease was smaller. We thus see that, after strong El Niño events, with tempera- tures higher than usual, the temperature records across the AP region experienced multiannual decreasing trends within the longer-term general warming trend (Figs. 2 and 4).

And the paper that they base their trend change on Turner et al, 2016 goes into a lengthy discussion of ENSO, SST and how it possibly relates to the changing trend in SAT on the peninsula:

During the 1999–2014 cooling period, a major change in tropical Pacific SSTs occurred with SSTs higher over the Maritime Continent and lower over the eastern Pacific Ocean (Fig. 3e). There was also enhanced transmission of quasi-stationary Rossby waves from the tropics towards the Antarctic, which can be seen in the differences in 300 hPa stream function (Fig. 4f ). However, at higher latitudes wave propagation was reduced or prohibited because of enhanced equatorward wave refraction or reflection from the PFJ region (Fig. 4f). The PFJ was significantly stronger across the South Pacific during the cooling period (Fig. 4e), which is consistent with the higher frequency of La Niña-like conditions and an enhanced meridional temperature gradient between mid- and high latitudes, corresponding to a negative IPO (Fig. 2b). The stronger PFJ resulted in greater surface cyclonic activity to the west of the AP during the cooling period (Fig. 4d), which typically gives higher SATs across the AP

People can decide for themselves if they see a real cooling trend or absurd games with line fitting.

Well hopefully they will read the paper more carefully than you apparently did.

Monthly data have been analysed for the entire period included for every station − depending on climate data availability for each site − as well as subdivided into decadal series starting from the most recent available data backwards. We have quantified climate parameters: MAAT, MSAT and their associated linear trends for the: 1) entire periods 2) period until 2005 which corresponds approximately to earlier assess- ments (e.g. Vaughan et al., 2003; Turner et al., 2005a), and 3) the most recent decade 2006–2015. The significance of all series trends was calculated using the Mann-Kendall test. Statistically significant differences were considered at p < 0.05.

so rather than "eye balling" trendlines as you seem to suggest they did the trends were calculated statistically. For those interested the Mann-Kendall test is a non-parametric test to discern whether trends are valid.

The purpose of the Mann-Kendall (MK) test (Mann 1945, Kendall 1975, Gilbert 1987) is to statistically assess if there is a monotonic upward or downward trend of the variable of interest over time. A monotonic upward (downward) trend means that the variable consistently increases (decreases) through time, but the trend may or may not be linear. The MK test can be used in place of a parametric linear regression analysis, which can be used to test if the slope of the estimated linear regression line is different from zero. The regression analysis requires that the residuals from the fitted regression line be normally distributed; an assumption not required by the MK test, that is, the MK test is a non-parametric (distribution-free) test.

Indeed, The Blaze was founded by none other than Glen Beck and spews the exact same kind of nonsense that that windbag does.

Sad to see otherwise bright commenters drawing on such a source.

Tanada only used that source as pointing to the article which was published in a respected, peer reviewed journal, Science of the Total Environment.If you have a problem with the published science then have at it.

Indeed, The Blaze was founded by none other than Glen Beck and spews the exact same kind of nonsense that that windbag does.

Sad to see otherwise bright commenters drawing on such a source.

Isn't that the real issue here? It's not the science or the scope of the science.

It's that the AGW deniers will try to use ANY opening to claim AGW isn't real -- and won't be shy about misusing the data. (Which is, of course, upsetting to all but the deniers.)

My reaction is: why should we be surprised? Deniers will deny.

...

Nature will do what it does. Scientists will continue to measure it, and climate scientists will continue to learn more and refine their models.

It's unfortunate that while we're less than "sure" AGW is a severe threat, we as a human society will do little, even as the problem worsens, wasting decades of precious time to act. Since meaningful action will be expensive and inconvenient, again, why should we be surprised? This is (a downside of) human nature.

Maybe if we're lucky, in the interim, at least green energy technologies will make lots of progress so when we FINALLY say "oops" and decide to get somewhat serious, we can have a larger and more affordable reaction.

Tanada only used that source as pointing to the article which was published in a respected, peer reviewed journal, Science of the Total Environment.If you have a problem with the published science then have at it.

LOL, rockdoc123! How is this different than every time you cry out about "grey journalism?" LOL!!!